Formative assessment (FA), often termed 'assessment for learning', represents a dynamic and systematic process designed to gather evidence of student learning during the instructional process (Heritage et al., 2009). These practices are underpinned by three fundamental processes: establishing where the learner is going, identifying where they are right now, and determining how to get them there (Black & Wiliam, 2009). Key strategies within this framework include clarifying and sharing learning intentions, engineering effective classroom discussions to elicit evidence of understanding, providing feedback that moves learning forward, and adapting instruction in response (Lee et al., 2020). 

FA has been identified as one of the evidence-based teaching strategies that “really works in special and inclusive education” (Mitchell & Sutherland, 2020). As an inclusive strategy, FA is particularly beneficial for traditionally low-achieving students, holding the potential to narrow the achievement gap between students from different socioeconomic and cognitive strata (Yan et al., 2021). Moreover, Gersten et al.’s (2009) meta‑synthesis of instructional components demonstrated that students with learning disabilities show markedly improved mathematical performance when they receive explicit instruction accompanied by continuous feedback. FA facilitates inclusion through pedagogical differentiation, where teachers adapt their instruction and provide personalised feedback based on the specific learning needs identified through ongoing evidence collection (Andersson & Palm, 2017).

The relationship between FA and student autonomy is defined by a fundamental shift in the learner's role, transforming them from a passive recipient of information into an active agent and owner of their own learning (Andersson & Palm, 2017). However, this transformation depends on whether a teacher implements merely the ‘letter’ or the ‘spirit’ of FA (Marshall & Drummond, 2006). The ‘letter’ refers to mechanically applying techniques, such as “hands down” questioning or extended “wait time”, which can become ritualistic and fail to engage deeper thinking. In contrast, the ‘spirit’ reflects a principled approach that emphasises internalising standards of quality and transferring regulatory control from the teacher to the student (Marshall & Drummond, 2006).

If we understand inclusive education as ensuring students’ presence in mainstream schools, enhancing their participation and achievements, and fostering their sense of belonging (Ainscow et al., 2006), then the inclusive dimension of FA supports equitable access to learning achievements through responsive teaching. At the same time, supporting autonomy enables students to engage more fully in classroom learning situations. The 'spirit' of FA is truly captured when teachers move beyond mechanistic procedures to implement high-level organisation based on ideas that promote student independence (Marshall & Drummond, 2006). Ultimately, effective FA may function as a coherent pedagogical orientation that, through the timely elicitation and use of evidence, builds both the inclusive structures and the individual agency required for all students to succeed (Yan et al., 2021).

Research questions and objectives

This paper draws on a subset of data from a larger study. It analyses interviews with teachers from three Czech primary schools who were identified as actively enacting formative assessment, along with principals, special educators, and teaching assistants from the same schools. It also incorporates group discussions with students in Grades 4 to 9 to capture their perspectives on these practices. The study is guided by the following three research questions:

1. How do teachers in the three schools describe the ways in which they enact FA practices?

2. In what ways do teachers and other adult school stakeholders perceive these FA practices as supporting or limiting student autonomy and inclusion, especially in relation to reducing achievement gaps among diverse learners?

3. How do students in the three schools experience and make sense of teachers’ FA practices in relation to their autonomy, participation, and sense of inclusion?

This research paper forms part of a larger mixed‑method project. However, to address the research questions outlined above, we used a qualitative design based on semi‑structured interviews and group discussions. Three teachers from three different primary schools were selected through purposive expert sampling, which involved consulting specialists in didactics and teaching methods to identify teachers recognised as exemplary practitioners of FA, with a partial snowball element whereby these teachers also suggested teachers with similar teaching approache from other schools. After initial contact, the three teachers and their school leadership agreed to participate. The participating schools were situated in different regions of the Czech Republic. Data collection was carried out over a three‑month period (November 2025 to January 2026), with all four authors of the paper actively involved throughout. Two qualitative methods were used. First, eleven semi‑structured individual interviews were conducted with teachers and other staff: three teachers, three principals, two school psychologists, one special education teacher, and two teaching assistants. These interviews, lasting 33–62 minutes, followed an interview schedule exploring the teachers’ FA practices and participants’ views on their relation to inclusive education and self‑regulated learning, while allowing space for emergent themes. Second, twenty‑four semi‑structured group discussions were carried out with 84 students from Grades 4–9 who volunteered and had parental consent. Groups consisted of two to four students. The group discussions took place during school hours in appropriate school spaces. Sessions lasted 7–17 minutes, and this short format with small, mostly friendship‑based groups enabled students to express their views more openly. Questions focused on their perceptions of teachers’ instructional strategies, feedback and assessment practices, and their experiences of inclusion in terms of belonging and achievement. For this abstract, only a preliminary analysis of the data has been undertaken. By the time of the conference, we expect to have begun a more detailed analysis in ATLAS.ti, from which we will share the findings. As the audio recordings have already been transcribed using Plaud.ai, the planned analysis will proceed with repeated close reading and the development of descriptive codes that will be grouped into topic codes (subordinate thematic categories) and critical codes reflecting interpretation and meaning‑making (Novotná et al., 2019). The coding will follow an iterative process with constant comparison across cases and the support of analytical memos, with higher‑order themes gradually emerging and being checked against the data for conceptual coherence and empirical grounding.

In relation to the first research question, teachers in the studied schools described using FA—often called responsive teaching—through frequent, real‑time checks of understanding with mini whiteboards, finger signals, or random selection (cold calling). They relied on routines such as a “Do Now” starter and breaking learning goals into small steps with clear success criteria and model examples. They reported adjusting teaching based on gathered evidence, whether by re‑explaining content, changing methods, incorporating peer learning, or offering individual support. They emphasised prompt feedback and self‑assessment to help learners correct their work and develop metacognitive skills. Regarding the second research question, adult respondents described FA and responsive teaching as key drivers of inclusion because they believe these practices provide the “knowledge apparatus” and structures that level the playing field for disadvantaged or diverse learners. They felt that breaking instruction into small steps with immediate feedback prevents students from “escaping” the learning process and creates a predictable, safe environment. Although some noted concerns that structured methods might seem over‑regulated, teachers maintained that autonomy develops through mastery and that explicit guidance and scaffolding, in their view, ultimately enable students to become self‑regulating. Regarding the third research question, many students reported feeling more independent when they could work at their own pace, choose task difficulty, or use their own methods, though some described reduced autonomy in lessons governed by strict timers and a rigid pace. Mini‑whiteboards, peer explanations, and gamified tasks generally increased participation, yet practices such as required eye contact sometimes created anxiety. Students often said they felt included when teachers provided fair, individualised support and handled mistakes sensitively. However, they also noted barriers such as social cliques, disruptive peers, and occasional feelings of being overlooked, particularly among high achieving students, who sometimes perceived that teaching practices predominantly benefited their lower achieving classmates.

Ainscow, M., Booth, T., & Dyson, A. (2006). Improving schools, developing inclusion. Routledge. Andersson, C., & Palm, T. (2017). The impact of formative assessment on student achievement: A study of the effects of changes to classroom practice after a comprehensive professional development programme. Learning and Instruction, 49, 92–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.12.006 Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5–31. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5 Gersten, R., Chard, D. J., Jayanthi, M., Baker, S. K., Morphy, P., & Flojo, J. (2009). Mathematics instruction for students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of instructional components. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1202–1242. APA PsycInfo. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654309334431 Heritage, M., Kim, J., Vendlinski, T., & Herman, J. (2009). From evidence to action: A seamless process in formative assessment? Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 28(3), 24–31. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2009.00151.x Lee, H., Chung, H. Q., Zhang, Y., Abedi, J., & Warschauer, M. (2020). The Effectiveness and Features of Formative Assessment in US K-12 Education: A Systematic Review. Applied Measurement in Education, 33(2), 124–140. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2020.1732383 Marshall, B., & Drummond, M. J. (2006). How teachers engage with assessment for learning: Lessons from the classroom. Research Papers in Education, 21(2), 133–149. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671520600615638 Mitchell, D., & Sutherland, D. (2020). What really works in special and inclusive education: Using evidence-based teaching strategies (3rd edn). Routledge. Novotná, H., 1974-, Špaček, O., 1983-, & Šťovíčková, M., 1976- (Eds). (2019). Metody výzkumu ve společenských vědách (Vydání první). FHS UK. Yan, Z., Li, Z., Panadero, E., Yang, M., Yang, L., & Lao, H. (2021). A systematic review on factors influencing teachers’ intentions and implementations regarding formative assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 28(3), 228–260. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2021.1884042